The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued an opinion on Jan. 23, 2026, in the high-profile case *Joshua Atchley v. AstraZeneca UK Limited*, following a remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. The case centers on allegations that major pharmaceutical and medical equipment companies provided material support to terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act.
The plaintiffs in the case are victims of attacks by Jaysh al-Mahdi, a terrorist organization that operated in Iraq, and family members of those killed or injured in the attacks. According to court documents, Jaysh al-Mahdi conducted a years-long campaign to harm Americans and drive U.S. military forces out of Iraq, resulting in hundreds of casualties among U.S. service members and civilians.
The case hinges on the plaintiffs' claims that during the period when attacks occurred, Jaysh al-Mahdi openly controlled Iraq's Ministry of Health and used the government agency as a vehicle to direct terrorist activities against Americans. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants - described as large pharmaceutical and medical equipment manufacturers and suppliers - knowingly provided substantial assistance to the attacks that injured them, thereby violating the Anti-Terrorism Act.
Circuit Judge Nina Pillard authored the opinion for the court, which included Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins and Senior Circuit Judge Harry Edwards. The case was argued on Nov. 19, 2024, before the three-judge panel.
The legal battle attracted significant attention from the legal community, drawing high-profile counsel on both sides. Joshua D. Branson argued for the appellants, supported by a legal team that included David C. Frederick, Andrew E. Goldsmith, and Derek C. Reinbold. The plaintiffs also received support from law professors, with Stephen I. Vladeck filing an amicus brief on behalf of law professors supporting the appellants.
AstraZeneca and the other defendants assembled a formidable legal defense team led by Lisa S. Blatt, a prominent Supreme Court advocate. The defense team included numerous experienced attorneys, including Kannon K. Shanmugam, former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh C. Johnson, and former State Department Legal Adviser John B. Bellinger III.
The case drew substantial support from major business organizations concerned about the implications for international commerce. The Chamber of Commerce of the United States filed an amicus brief supporting the defendants, with representation by Jordan L. Von Bokern, Andrew J. Pincus, and Robert W. Hamburg. Additionally, the organization Charity & Security filed an amicus brief supporting the appellees, represented by Timothy P. Harkness and a team of attorneys.
The Anti-Terrorism Act, which forms the basis of the plaintiffs' claims, provides a civil remedy for U.S. nationals injured by acts of international terrorism. The statute allows victims to sue for damages against those who provide material support or resources to terrorist organizations. Cases under the ATA often involve complex questions about the scope of liability for businesses that operate in conflict zones or provide goods and services that may indirectly benefit terrorist groups.
The involvement of the Supreme Court adds particular significance to this case. The high court's decision to remand the case suggests there were important legal questions that required further consideration by the appeals court. Supreme Court remands typically occur when the high court identifies legal issues that need clarification or when new developments in the law affect the case's resolution.
The case represents part of a broader pattern of litigation seeking to hold corporations accountable for alleged support of terrorism through their business operations. These cases often present challenging questions about the extent to which companies can be held liable for the actions of terrorist groups that may benefit from their products or services.
For AstraZeneca and other multinational pharmaceutical companies, the case raises important questions about liability risks when operating in unstable regions where government institutions may be compromised by terrorist organizations. The pharmaceutical industry closely watches such cases as they can establish precedents affecting how companies assess and manage risks in conflict-affected areas.
The D.C. Circuit's decision will likely be scrutinized by both the business community and victims' rights advocates. The court's analysis of what constitutes "knowing" assistance to terrorism and the standards for establishing corporate liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act could influence future cases involving similar allegations.
The timing of the decision, coming more than five years after the case number was assigned, reflects the complex procedural history and the significance of the legal issues involved. The Supreme Court's involvement and subsequent remand added additional time to the litigation process.
While the specific details of the court's ruling were not available in the court filing, the case's resolution will likely have implications for how courts evaluate corporate liability in terrorism financing cases and the standards applied when assessing whether business activities constitute material support to terrorist organizations.